Path: nntp.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic,comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Halting Problem Proof ERROR
Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2025 10:02:30 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 245
Message-ID: <105j0e7$3cagp$6@dont-email.me>
References: <102sjg5$2k3e9$1@dont-email.me> <103g682$2k9u7$1@dont-email.me>
 <103h1ch$2q86f$5@dont-email.me> <103j40h$3col5$1@dont-email.me>
 <103n9si$ecm8$1@dont-email.me> <103okoh$r8lq$1@dont-email.me>
 <103oql4$rq7e$7@dont-email.me> <103qu9v$1egu3$1@dont-email.me>
 <103rh5r$1hc53$7@dont-email.me> <103th0k$22kgq$1@dont-email.me>
 <103uin0$292c0$7@dont-email.me> <104041c$2nne5$1@dont-email.me>
 <1040hq4$2ql69$3@dont-email.me> <1042l0e$3cik5$1@dont-email.me>
 <1046v71$ctak$1@dont-email.me> <1047vld$n4s2$1@dont-email.me>
 <1048hp0$qd4f$2@dont-email.me>
 <66c00d5703907e846f537310dfb201485e1b7b2a@i2pn2.org>
 <10492eb$u8g5$1@dont-email.me> <104b5l9$fnl$1@news.muc.de>
 <104ben3$1hqln$1@dont-email.me> <104bt5h$1l1g$1@news.muc.de>
 <104bunk$1kcb5$1@dont-email.me> <104did7$hlh$1@news.muc.de>
 <104e164$2852a$1@dont-email.me> <104e6nd$12ua$1@news.muc.de>
 <105b287$1dh7g$1@dont-email.me> <105fjkk$2l0p6$1@dont-email.me>
 <105gciq$2pk90$5@dont-email.me> <105ia07$394n4$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2025 17:02:31 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="9b17940e46cfbc33e640f3b7657335c3";
	logging-data="3549721"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+1RqHQiE5em5c+VJ48C3Mo"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:ipgfRJG2QzkOOcY8wXXaF2d1JE8=
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250720-4, 7/20/2025), Outbound message
In-Reply-To: <105ia07$394n4$1@dont-email.me>
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Content-Language: en-US

On 7/20/2025 3:39 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2025-07-19 15:11:21 +0000, olcott said:
> 
>> On 7/19/2025 3:05 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2025-07-17 14:44:23 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> On 7/6/2025 11:02 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>>> [ Followup-To: set ]
>>>>>
>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/6/2025 5:16 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>>>>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 7/5/2025 2:07 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You lie.  You don't have a proof.  Many people in this group 
>>>>>>>>> have pointed
>>>>>>>>> out lots of errors in various versions of your purported proof, 
>>>>>>>>> which you
>>>>>>>>> just ignore.  The section in Professor Linz's book you used to 
>>>>>>>>> be so fond
>>>>>>>>> of citing will contain plenty of details, if only you would 
>>>>>>>>> take the
>>>>>>>>> trouble to understand it (assuming you're capable of such 
>>>>>>>>> understanding).
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I have addressed ....
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Meaningless pompous word.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> .... all of those details that you make sure to ignore so that 
>>>>>>>> you can
>>>>>>>> baselessly claim that I am wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> I vaguely remember rolling my eyes at your hopeless lack of
>>>>>>> understanding.  It was like watching a 7 year old trying to do 
>>>>>>> calculus.
>>>>>>> The basic understanding was simply not there.  Years later, it's 
>>>>>>> still
>>>>>>> not there.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> And yes, you are wrong.  The proofs of the halting theorem which 
>>>>>>> involve
>>>>>>> constructing programs which purported halting deciders cannot decide
>>>>>>> correctly are correct.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Yet you cannot point to even one mistake because there are none.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's what I'm saying.  Those proofs of the halting theorem are free
>>>>> from mistakes.
>>>>>
>>>>> More to the point, it is YOU who cannot point to any mistakes in them.
>>>>> They are valid proofs.  Your work, if it contradicts those proofs 
>>>>> (which
>>>>> isn't at all clear) can thus be dismissed without further 
>>>>> consideration.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There cannot possibly be *AN ACTUAL INPUT* that does the
>>>>>>>> opposite of whatever its decider decides. All of the examples
>>>>>>>> of this have never been *ACTUAL INPUTS*
>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's so sloppily worded, it could mean almost anything.
>>>>>
>>>>>> The standard halting problem proof cannot even be constructed.
>>>>>
>>>>> It has been constructed, and is valid.  But one would normally talk 
>>>>> about
>>>>> formulating a proof, rather than constructing one.
>>>>>
>>>>> [ .... ]
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No Turing machine can possibly take another directly executing
>>>>>>>> Turing machine as in input, thus removing these from the
>>>>>>>> domain of every halt decider.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> And that, too.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *Thus the requirement that HHH report on the behavior*
>>>>>>>> *of the directly executed DD has always been bogus*
>>>>>
>>>>>>> And that makes your hat trick.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Turing machine partial halt deciders compute the mapping
>>>>>>>> from their actual inputs to the actual behavior that these
>>>>>>>> inputs specify.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> And a fourth.  There's some semblance of truth in there, but it's 
>>>>>>> very
>>>>>>> confused.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> It is not at all confused. I know exactly what it means.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's very confused to everybody but you, then.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sloppy wording is your technique to get people to go down to your 
>>>>>>> level
>>>>>>> of discussion.  That involves many posts trying just to tie you 
>>>>>>> down to
>>>>>>> specific word meanings, and is very tiresome and unrewarding.  I 
>>>>>>> decline
>>>>>>> to get involved any further.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> *Yet as I claimed you found no actual mistake*
>>>>>
>>>>> I've found plenty of actual mistakes.  I was a software developer by
>>>>> profession.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Let me tell you the punchline so that you can
>>>>>> see why I said those things.
>>>>>
>>>>> Despite what I said last post, I will actually go to the trouble of
>>>>> analysing your sloppy expression.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Because directly executed Turing machines cannot
>>>>>> possibly be inputs to Turing machine deciders this
>>>>>> makes them outside of the domain of these deciders.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's entirely unclear what a "directly executed Turing machine" 
>>>>> is.  Most
>>>>> of the time turing machines are theoretical constructs used for 
>>>>> proving
>>>>> theorems.  They can be executed, but rarely are.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's unclear what you mean by a turing machine being an input to a 
>>>>> turing
>>>>> machine.  Read up about universal turing machines to get a bit of
>>>>> background.
>>>>>
>>>>>> When a partial halt decider is required to report
>>>>>> on the direct execution of a machine this requirement
>>>>>> is bogus.
>>>>>
>>>>> See above.  That paragraph is meaningless.
>>>>>
>>>>>> This means that the behavior of DD() is none of the damn
>>>>>> business of HHH, thus does not contradict HHH(DD)==0.
>>>>>> *If you disagree this only proves that you do not understand*
>>>>>
>>>>> It's fully obscure what DD() and HHH mean, and thus impossible to
>>>>> affirm or contradict the meaningless "HHH(DD)==0".
>>>>>
>>>>>> HHH(DD) does correctly detect that DD simulated by HHH
>>>>>> according to the semantics pf the C programming language
>>>>>> cannot possibly reach its own "return"statement final
>>>>>> halt state.
>>>>>
>>>>> See above.  By the way, people concerned with computation theory use
>>>>> turing machines, which are well-defined, simple, and powerful.  
>>>>> They lack
>>>>> the complexity, ambiguity, and unsuitability for theoretical work 
>>>>> of real
>>>>> world programming languages like C.
>>>>>
>>>>>> *If you disagree this only proves that you do not understand*
>>>>>
>>>>>> Any mindless idiot can disagree. Showing an error and proving
>>>>>> that it is an actual mistake requires much more than this.
>>>>>
>>>>> Indeed.  All you have done is disagree with one of the proofs of the
>>>>> halting theorem.  You have yet to show an error in it.  That will be
>>>>> difficult, because there aren't any.
>>>>
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========